Heh, that’s a pretty smart business move, however. This is pure capitalism at work, danithew. :)

I haven’t gotten it. Must be a conservative thing.

I must have missed that memo. ;)

I haven’t received the email either, thankfully.

Julie (and others),

I was wondering if at some point as a (former) fan of Richard Dutcher movies, I might have signed up for advisories with some Dutcher-related website. I don’t honestly remember. I certainly never intended to sign up for this stupid sales pitch.

Part of the marketing cynicism demonstrated here is that the message came twice. And yes, that makes it spam.

I’m sure some corporate talking head somewhere could come up with a “these extra emails were sent out by mistake – we are so sorry, blah blah blah” statement – but I don’t think I’d believe it.

I think I did sign up to hear about Dutcher movies–definitely not a Romney site.

A few years ago someone signed a bunch of people from our ward up for an ultra-right-wing website’s mailing list. I got the emails removed but I was unable to discover who the culprit was that submitted them.

I’ve gotten it twice too. I assumed it came from having signed up at Dutcher’s website years ago.

danithew,

I feel Dutcher not only made a major personal mistake in leaving the Church – but he also gave ammunition to those who criticized his previous good efforts. I also think he has shown a ridiculous level of pride.

Not only that but also are now future LDS filmmakers going to think that the more they get involved in film work, they too will eventually leave the church?

Can one be a talented filmmaker and a strong member of the church? Or is filmmaking too, well, I can’t think of a better word, corrupt?

what I’m trying to say is that if you follow Mr. Dutcher’s career, he starts with God’s Army, a very Mormon movie, and then you get Evil Angel (which granted I don’t know anything about) which sure seems to be a regression from the moral standard of a God’s Army.

Filmmakers in general have tended to regress morally. If you look at Steven Spielberg, for example, his first R-rated movie (I think) is Schindler’s List (though I could be wrong—I tend to forget some of his earlier stuff). He’s the one who introduced us with the PG-13 rating thanks to the heart scene in Indy II.

Many a series, or a progression of stories from artists these days tend to get darker. As another example, look at the Harry Potter series. Look how dark they have turned.

I agree with danithew on Richard Dutcher’s decision. It is not easy to be an active Mormon.

However, I also agree with those who say States of Grace isn’t an accurate depiction of Mormonism. I think it’s more an accurate depiction of Richard Dutcher’s personal struggles and pain.

However yet again, I think I’m going to write an expose on my neighborhood and get rich off the personal struggles and pain of my neighbors. I better hurry before Mitt screws up and I can’t make anything off being a Mormon.

Dan,
I don’t think the increasing “darkness” of Harry Potter films is evidence of “moral regression” on the part of filmmakers. The films reflect the books, and the author said early on in the series that the books would be increasingly “darker” as the main character matured, etc.

Also, I note that everyone here is saying Dutcher “left the [LDS] church” His statement said that he was not going to be active in the LDS church at this time, but did not say that he was “leaving” it. Speaking for myself, one “leaves” the LDS church by either requesting that their name be removed from the records, or entirely turning their backs.

Nick, you might be right to make a distinction between leaving the church as opposed to choosing to be “inactive.” There is a difference. I have no idea what Dutcher’s official status is with the church.

It might be better to use a quote from the linked article by Dutcher. He writes:

“As many of you know, I am no longer a practicing member of the church.”

Makakona,

Right. I think someone has kept and collected all these email addresses and is using them for additional marketing purposes. I’m not surprised – but I think maybe the expiration date on this one expired some time ago.

Margaret, your expressions of appreciation for Richard Dutcher are duly noted. If you feel such strong appreciation for him then that makes me pause a bit from the tone/feelings I was expressing earlier.

I’m glad he’s been that helpful with you on your project – which I am _very_ much looking forward to seeing.

Matt,

I enjoyed Brigham City and have God’s Army II in my netflix queue (finally, they took forever to have it available.)

Anyhow he might be a spoiled child, but I think he is right about bad films destroying the emerging Mormon Cinema market. People are free to make whatever crappy movies they want to, but they have damaged the reputation of the genre and hurt Dutcher’s commercial potential.

Matt, you gotta see Brigham City.

Go to their company store, and buy the 3-pack of
Dutcher’s movies: God’s Army, Brigham City, and States of Grace for $40, plus $4.50 ship.

http://www.statesofgrace.com/store.html

That’s just under $15/each with shipping.

While we’re discussing using this movie to explain Mormonism to non-Mormons, I want to mention a few other things that I found interesting about my friend’s response, and about mine as a convert.

*******MORE SPOILERS******
The largest thing that seemed strange about the movie to him was the life-or-death importance of sexual sin. He didn’t get that part at all, though they tried to foreshadow the suicide attempt with that sequence of him telling what his father said about returning with honor or dead. That part is pretty inexplicable and harsh to non-Mormons who are used to thinking of premarital sex as a minor slip, or even as perfectly fine. The major thing that jarred me (as a convert) about the movie is the view of women shown. I don’t know if this was intended, but it felt like a completely unconscious revelation on the part of the writer/director.

Women were shown, from the very first scenes, in ways that I found extremely problematic. There were the cheerleader sisters at the basketball game, being cheerleaders, and even the token good-at-basketball sister came off as a patronizing nod to feminists. Then there were the bikini-clad sing-a-hymn girls, portrayed as a toxic temptation to the elders. Next were the volleyball playing beach girls in the polygamy-loving-stoner scene. Again and again girls were objectified in this movie.

The major character of the actress, though she was obviously portrayed as a human in her excellent confessional scene, was still badly mistreated by all concerned. They acted like she was some evil temptress or something, when she was obviously not anything of the sort. To me she was the one most hurt by Elder Farrell’s irresponsibility in turning a missionary relationship into a sexual one. Yet instead of acknowledging that Elder Farrell and therefore the church he represented had failed and harmed her, they all seemed to act like she was the one to blame and he was the injured party. Maybe this is how it actually would have gone down, and maybe that’s a commentary on our missionary training and oversight, or maybe this is just the unconscious thoughts of the director appearing on the screen. I’m not sure which. In any case, the more honorable thing to do would be for him to actually date her as a real suitor (which the movie hints may happen, since she’s going to call him) rather than to run away from her like she’s some toxic substance. So in the end I felt very much like she was treated as a nonhuman too.

*****END SPOILERS*****

I’d be interested in hearing how lifetime members viewed these scenes of the movie. It’s fascinating to me how different people experience a totally different movie, based on their own life history and experiences. I think good art appeals to different people in a wide variety of ways, and for different reasons.

Bookslinger, you’re right. I think all artists do that. Certainly Dostoyevsky did, since he had epilepsy like Prince Myshkin, was a compulsive gambler as shown in his book The Gambler, his father was like the elder Karamazov, and he had religious experiences like Aloysha, was an atheist rationalist like Vanya, and a sensualist like Mitya (from the brothers Karamazov) at various times in his life. I speculate that he had a part in murdering his father, whom history reports was killed by his own serfs who poured vodka down his throat until he choked to death. The theme of patricide, as well as that of a murderer going a long time without being caught, appear again and again in his work.

I guess when you’re writing your own life, it feels real. I really like Dutcher’s films, and don’t fault him for being arrogant and so on. What artist would give so much of their time, effort, life to their art if they didn’t think it was extremely important work? Orson Scott Card said that you have to simultaneously believe that your work is garbage that needs a complete rewrite and that it’s the most important thing ever and is going to change the whole world. :) Otherwise you can’t get it done successfully. All artists are arrogant like that about their work. I think it’s marvelous! :)